Op Titanium

[nun_hunter]

Wtf has joint or separate bank accounts got to do with it???
Honestly, some of those questions are just beyond!

Thankfully Coercive and controlling behaviour is now a crime. Financial control is a very popular method to keep someone with you if they wish to leave and have control over them and how they are able to live their life.

Having a shared bank account on its own is not a red flag (although why you would is beyond me, but that's my personal opinion) but in combination with other factors it builds a picture.

As I said before, none of these questions are pass/fail but a combination of answers can highlight or flag up concerning behaviour.

 

[tackb]

The question I was talking about referred specifically to a "joint" bank account. A joint account would be accessible by both partners, equally. Nothing there to do with control. In fact, I would say that where partners keep all of their money in joint accounts this is indicative of a trusting, loving, sharing relationship. There is no need for partners in a stable relationship to have separate bank accounts. To me, if partners feel that they need separate bank accounts, that indicate that perhaps the relationship isn't so stable after all.

i have a few friends that have had their joint accounts cleared out by their partners when they have left them and i understand legally you are pretty stuffed regarding getting anything back

a more modern solution that seems to be prevelent now is seperate current accounts with a joint account you both pay into for joint bills , less risk for both parties

one other thing , they say you never really know someone till you divorce them..........

 

[25 Sharps]

i have a few friends that have had their joint accounts cleared out by their partners when they have left them and i understand legally you are pretty stuffed regarding getting anything back

a more modern solution that seems to be prevelent now is seperate current accounts with a joint account you both pay into for joint bills , less risk for both parties

That’s exactly how we do it, not because of risk, just seems the sensible thing to do!

 

[tackb]

That’s exactly how we do it, not because of risk, just seems the sensible thing to do!

if i ever live with anyone again or heaven forbid get married again it's exactly what i will do and what my girlfriend would want to do , we've discussed it

 

[Davsim]

Some of the questions are certainly pass or fail . Import weapons /threaten or intimidate with weapons/ start fights or arguments /have anger issues / be coercive or display controlling behavior/ assault your partner with a weapon / prescribed or none prescribed medication ie substance abuse ask your partner to say yes to any of them and let us know how long you keep your certificate and firearms for .
I wholeheartedly agree with you anyone guilty of behaviour like that is not fit to be in possession of firearms . Coercive and controlling behaviour by a psychopath which is pretty close to the description given those questions . Would need to be stopped immediately , I can only assume the police would act immediately if any issues came up . And in such a case the police should be thanked and commended .
It just makes more sense to use their existing powers than give them extra work with cuts and understaffing etc is causing problems for many forces . Public safety should be everyone's priority police and certificate holders. This seems unnecessary .

 

[kenbro]

These are the questions being used by the fuzz in at least 5 forces. Supplied by gwent police. I’ll leave you to determine what is nonsense or not. Basc are aligning themselves to this because they want a ten year certificate, but apparently discussions have taken place about the appropriateness of the questions so we hope for change. Frankly its all unnecessary. Feos have the ability to question and follow indicators but this is a step too far, unilateral and results in a refusal if you don’t supply details of on how to contact your current or ex partners. This should only be used if there is an indication to follow a path around domestic disharmony. Otherwise it is not proportionate. There is a huge bias towards men and no questions about female hormonal incidents and whether the partner of the applicant is actually the controlling factor blah blah you get my drift of you read it.


FIREARMS DA PARTNERS QUESTIONS

Would your partner ever get professional help if they had any mental health issues?

Has your partner ever mentioned suicide and if so, what has been mentioned?

Would your partner ever hurt an animal?

Would your partner ever hurt a child?

Does your partner have a fascination, or has a keen interest in criminality/criminals?

Does your partner have an interest with weapons, including non-licensed weapons such as cross bows, knives etc?

Has your partner obtained weapons from abroad or the UK that are not licensed?

Are you aware if your partner is on prescription medicine or non-prescription medications and if so what medication and what for?

Has your partner ever threatened to use, or has used a weapon on you?

Has your partner ever threatened to use, or has used a weapon on anyone else?

Is your partner anti- police?

Does your partner abide by rules and/or authority, or do they find it difficult?

Does your partner ever leave weapons out, in view or clean weapons in front of you to cause fear or control over you?

Have you got access to the weapons and/or keys?

Are you aware of any previous issues with any ex-partner?

In your relationship with your partner do you both make equal decisions, or does your partner tend to make the decisions?

Is there anything you feel you are not allowed, or cannot do because of your partner, as it may upset them?

Would your partner be more inclined to walk away from a fight/argument or start a fight/argument?

How much would it bother your partner if they lost their shotgun/firearms license?

Have they ever threatened professionals against you i.e social services taking the children?

If you needed to reach out to authorities/professionals, do you have a fear of not being believed by them and if so, why?

Do you know what your partner uses their weapon for?

Have you ever been fearful of your partner?

Do you have any concerns of the person having a shotgun/firearm?

Do you and your partner have a joint or separate bank account?

Do you have free access to money?

Are the weapons/hobbies prioritised over family/household expenditure?

Does your partner have a quick temper?

Does your partners mood affect the rest of the household?

Does your partner have a different persona outside the house in comparison to in the house?

That’s a joke, surely?
Ken.

 

[kenbro]

That’s you Red Listed then!!! You need to start watching Gardeners World together

But don’t hurt any animals with your gardening tools.
K

 

[sh1kar]

What does DA stand for in this context?

 

[Stalker62]

What does DA stand for in this context?

Domestic Abuse.

 

[BobJones]

What does DA stand for in this context?

Domestic Abuse, presumptive title huh

 

[Liveonce]

We have raised our objections at a recent meeting of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group, written to the chair, and supportive MPs are raising our concerns with the Home Office. That's the starting point. I will post an update once published by BASC.

Are the minutes of the FELWG available again for all to read?

 

[VSS]

Thankfully Coercive and controlling behaviour is now a crime. Financial control is a very popular method to keep someone with you if they wish to leave and have control over them and how they are able to live their life.

Having a shared bank account on its own is not a red flag (although why you would is beyond me, but that's my personal opinion) but in combination with other factors it builds a picture.

As I said before, none of these questions are pass/fail but a combination of answers can highlight or flag up concerning behaviour.

It would never occur to me not to share everything with my partner. That's kind of what you sign up for when you get married, isn't it?
I can't remember when I last had my own (ie, not joint) bank account. Probably 25-30 years ago?
When we were students (ie, before we were married) we shared digs, so it seemed sensible to open a joint account to pay both of our student grant cheques into, and live off that. So we did, on the understanding that if we went our separate ways at the end of our time in Uni we'd simply split the remaining balance.
After a while (by which time we were married) we found that we were no longer using our individual accounts, so we closed them and have just had a joint personal account since then.

If I was an FEO, my "red flag" would be popping up where partners in a relationship do not trust one another enough to share everything that they have.

Anyway, enough of the personal stuff! My point being that some questions can be a double edged sword, so you're potentially damned whichever way you answer them.

 

[Stalker62]

Domestic Abuse, presumptive title huh

No, not really...as a "firearms law expert", I thought you would know all about this...

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Are the minutes of the FELWG available again for all to read?

I don't know.

 

[BobJones]

No, not really...as a "firearms law expert", I thought you would know all about this...

I mean presumptive title from the police aspect. They label things before they have proven an issue to do with DA.

 

[Liveonce]

I don't know.

May be find out at the next meeting?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

May be find out at the next meeting?

I don't attend the meetings, but Martin Parker, our head of firearms does, so I will ask him if they have plans to publish the minutes like they used to.

 

[Stalker62]

I mean presumptive title from the police aspect. They label things before they have proven an issue to do with DA.

Utter nonsense.

It has nothing to do with Police 'labelling' anything.

If you don't like the 'title' "Domestic Abuse", take it up with Parliament - they brought the "Domestic Abuse" legislation in.

 

[mel b3]

Well after half an hour , reading through , and laughing at , the questions , we've realised that my good lady wife is not a fit person to hold a sgc/fac . Thank god she's never picked a gun up in her life .
Right , I'm off to the solicitor to see about a divorce ( if she says i can).

 

[nun_hunter]

It would never occur to me not to share everything with my partner. That's kind of what you sign up for when you get married, isn't it?
I can't remember when I last had my own (ie, not joint) bank account. Probably 25-30 years ago?
When we were students (ie, before we were married) we shared digs, so it seemed sensible to open a joint account to pay both of our student grant cheques into, and live off that. So we did, on the understanding that if we went our separate ways at the end of our time in Uni we'd simply split the remaining balance.
After a while (by which time we were married) we found that we were no longer using our individual accounts, so we closed them and have just had a joint personal account since then.

If I was an FEO, my "red flag" would be popping up where partners in a relationship do not trust one another enough to share everything that they have.

Anyway, enough of the personal stuff! My point being that some questions can be a double edged sword, so you're potentially damned whichever way you answer them.

My wife and I have our own accounts where our pay checks go and a joint account which we each contribute to each month for joint responsibilities and costs. It doesn't have anything to do with trust, more that we like to maintain our independence too.

There is absolutely no harm in sharing a single joint account as long as both parties are happy with that arrangement and that's what would be checked if there were concerns around any controlling or coercive behaviour.

It's no secret that you are most likely to be murdered by someone you know (even more so if you are a woman) so it makes sense to ask supporting questions to ensure that the police who ultimately grant an FAC or SGC aren't giving someone easier means to inflict harm in a situation where harm is most likely to occur.